Tanks Haven't Been Effective Against China For Eons

The U.S. Army's M1 Abrams tanks will "not be effective" or able to "dominate" on the battlefields of the 2040s, especially in the context of a potential high-end conflict against China. This is the conclusion of an official advisory body that is also calling for an Abrams replacement effort that could include a next-generation M1 derivative, as well as lighter 'tanks' armed with larger caliber guns and hypersonic anti-tank missiles, and uncrewed ground vehicles.

The Army Science Board, a federally-sanctioned independent group of experts that advises the Secretary of the Army, recently published an assessment about the future of the M1 tank. It also outlines the need for one or more types of "5th Generation Combat Vehicle," or 5GCV, to meet operational demands in the 2040s. The origins of this study trace back to 2019 and the final report is dated August 2023. . . . 

The Army currently has around 2,500 M1 Abrams tanks in service today, with thousands more in storage that could potentially be refurbished and returned to service, if necessary. The original M1 entered service in the 1980s and significantly more capable variants have been introduced since then.

The Army Science Board study is blunt in its core conclusions about the future of the M1, stating early on:

Based on our findings, The M1 Abrams will not dominate the 2040 battlefield. All of the M1’s advantages in mobility, firepower, and protection are at risk. The M1A2 SEP V3&4 upgrades will improve effectiveness but will not restore dominance. Near transparency in all domains will significantly increase the lethality our forces will experience. China and Russia have studied our forces and doctrine and are fielding countermeasures. We will continue to have to fight outnumbered, exacerbated by a low MBT operational readiness rate and an aging fleet.

From here.

Forget 2040! 

Tanks are not effective against the People's Republic of China in a major conventional war now, were not effective against the People's Republic of China in a major conventional war at any time in my lifetime, and will indeed, also not be effective against the People's Republic of China in a major conventional war in 2040.

So far as I know, a D-day style invasion of mainland China is not and has not been at any time in recent history, a part of U.S. strategy for engaging the People's Republic of China in a conventional war. If it was, it shouldn't have been. It simply makes no sense to try to conduct a land invasion of a country that currently has 1.4 billion people with a large and modern military on land that is indisputably Chinese territory. 

This is as absurd as the conservative fairy tale movie "Red Dawn" about a Russian invasion of the U.S. by land from Mexico. It makes absolutely no sense.

But Taiwan you say!

Nope.

If any significant number of Chinese tanks make it to the island of Formosa, and infantry carried anti-tank weapons and anti-tank mines aren't enough to thwart them, then the cause of defending Taiwanese autonomy from the mainland Chinese aggression is pretty much a lost cause that U.S. main battle tanks won't help.

Furthermore, unless U.S. main battle tanks are prepositioned on the island of Formosa, they are useless anyway. The U.S. has no way to deliver any meaningful number of its 70+ ton main battle tanks there in time to be useful from anyplace that it has a meaningful number of them in place.

I've railed repeatedly about the extent to which surface warships are sitting ducks and are extremely vulnerable to all sorts of threats. But that goes tenfold for slow, basically unarmed, unstealthy military transport ships less than two hundred miles from the coast of mainland China bringing heavy U.S. tanks to Taiwan. Never mind that it would take weeks for each delivery of U.S. tanks to arrive from the nearest base that has any significant number of U.S. tanks. Yet, a battle to gain a foothold for PRC ground troops on the island of Formosa is likely to have completely run its course in a week or two.

When and if China pulls the trigger to try to invade Taiwan, for all practical purposes, anything that can only get there via a military or commercial transport ship doesn't exist. This is one of the important reasons that the U.S. Marine Corps has divested itself of tanks.

These are not new realities that are just around the corner in seven years or a decade. This has been the reality for at least the last half-century or so.

If U.S. main battle tanks are of any use to Taiwan, to South Korea, or to Japan, the only sensible option is to preposition them in those countries and probably to simply sell them to these U.S. allies or to simply give them away to these U.S. allies. The U.S. already has far more M1 Abrams main battle tanks than it has any reasonable military use for. Then, at least, the tanks could be fully integrated into the military forces of the countries defending their own territory against a Chinese invasion.

Also, just to be clear, North Korea's missiles are a threat to its neighbors (and even Hawaii, U.S. Pacific territories, and the Pacific coastal states of the U.S.). Likewise, North Korea's very numerous but outdated coastal submarines could pose a threat to maritime commerce and the warships of the U.S. and its allies in the East China Sea and the Sea of Japan. But tanks are useless against both of these threats.

North Korea has no capacity to launch an amphibious invasion of Japan or Taiwan (even with Chinese assistance). North Korea's ground forces are a mere biting fly to China. And, even a North Korean invasion of South Korea over the demilitarized zone with North Korea's profoundly outdated tanks and inferior artillery isn't all that much of a threat. 

In short, there is really no plausible scenario in which U.S. main battle tanks under U.S. command would be particularly important in defending any of the U.S.'s East Asian allies from invasions from either the People's Republic of China or North Korea.

South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan all have their own home grown tanks, which are less massive than the M1 Abrams, which were purpose built for their task. Our East Asian allies don't have a strong military need for U.S. tanks period, even as part of their own military forces. Even a majorly upgraded successor to the M1 Abrams that is still basically a main battle tank, could do nothing to change this analysis. A next generation tank is something that the U.S. military does not need, at least for any conflicts in the Asian Pacific region.